A more vigorous US military buildup in response to the second Sino-Japanese war

[trurle]

But going from the 6pdr/57mm to the M3 75mm, that was going from 379tons of ME to 427, and the M6 37mm was 112 tons vs 142 for the 2pdr/40mm

The 25pdr had 555 tons of ME, and given that it could penetrate 54mm of armor at 1000 yards for an 1100 pound tube weight, shows where they should have been looking for a tank gun in the late 1930s.

And it had an awesome HE round, too.

I do not know which units are you using (energy do not measure in tons). My database (WWIIg) has following (and quite typical) muzzle energy values for guns first made made in around 1940:
37mm gun M1A2 0.25 MJ
47 mm armata przeciwpancerna wz. 39 0.57 MJ
57 mm anti-tank gun M1943 (ZiS-2) 1.58 MJ

 

[marathag]

I do not know which units are you using (energy do not measure in tons). My database (WWIIg) has following (and quite typical) muzzle energy values for guns first made made in around 1940:
37mm gun M1A2 0.25 MJ
47 mm armata przeciwpancerna wz. 39 0.57 MJ
57 mm anti-tank gun M1943 (ZiS-2) 1.58 MJ

_Sherman, a History of the American Medium Tank_ RP Hunnicutt. was ft.tons, for AP projectiles to that data charts

 

[trurle]

_Sherman, a History of the American Medium Tank_ RP Hunnicutt. was ft.tons, for AP projectiles to that data charts

1 ft*ton should be about 3 kJ. 112 ft*ton 37mm M6 was therefore 0.34 MJ, a lot for weapon of 37mm caliber. AP-T projectile of M3/M6 actually weighted 0.87kg, compared to 0.61kg (and at lower muzzle velocity) of M1. Even modern Millenium GDM-008 have muzzle energy of 0.31 MJ (although at caliber 35mm, which scale to 0.37 MJ for 37mm)

 

[McPherson]

Eh?
the M2A4 that became the M3 was pretty solid, and the British were falling overthemselves with praise for the M3 'Honey' given where their armor was at, if you want to talk about bugs wit tracks/drivetrain/powerplant were at in 1940

as WWII started, the M2 Light was probably the most reliable tank on the planet, with the best radio gear

The only problem with the M2 family, is was what's sitting on the hull in 1938

That piece of junk was powered by a Continental R-670, the same engine you find in the PT-17 Stearman biplane trainer aircraft that was the first trainer aircraft many USAAC pilots are going to see. Engine bottleneck. So guess what? Not only is this slower than a Stuart cross country, paper thin armored clunker, with the handle me gently or my transmission will quit on you; a mere way-stop to the Stuart, but it is a lot less reliable than this... piece of junk.

And there are only about 300 of them, the M-2 A4s.

That thing's (^^^ Ha-Go) shortcoming was paper thin armor (1.5 cm frontal plate, about the actual same plate as a British cruiser tank A9 of 1941 of the same period) and a lack of a radio. But its transmission, diesel engine and gun were absolutely 100% reliable. It could shoot holes in the M2 (^^^) and more importantly, it weighed only half as much, so it could be easily shipped. It was one of the many reasons the British in Malaya were routed. (Any tank supported infantry is 2x as lethal as none tank supported infantry,)

I think that the US Army Automotive Command should have pulled their collective hat-racks out of their biological waste treatment plant orifices and tried for this:

Hi, I'm what beat the Japanese at Khalkin Gul.

Which this was a hop skip and jump toward...(see below the ancestor of the BTs)

That is American (^^^) BTW and the only thing wrong with it, is what sits on top of it. (Not just the turret, but some of the braindead evaluators.).

The Stuart was indeed a considerable improvement over it, and equally almost a full magnitude over the Rock Island M2 which started life as a Vickers 6 tonner riopoff. Better engines and armor package in the Stuart. The gun (3.7cm) was still pathetic. A British 2 pdr or a French 4.7cm would have made the Stuart more lethal. (Prefer the French gun. It comes with HE and canister for anti-infantry work.)

Of course going straight for an M-7 instead of farting with the Stuart would have meant North Africa in 1941 would have been "interesting" in a negative Axis outcome kind of way.

Hi, there! I'm an evolved Stuart. I'm not as tall as a Sherman, I weigh less than a Sherman, have better protection than any British cruiser, with the same cross country performance and a better gun! My problem? I'm 3 years too late in 1943! So why build me? (Correct decision BTW. With the war in full swing, the resource diversion was not justifiable. McP.)

BTW as modern scholarship has shown, a "Honey" to a British tanker means something that is a bit "sticky" and messy, so one cannot conflate Americanisms with what the British actually meant by "Honey".

Don't know where that wrong idea came from, maybe R. P. Hunnicutt?

 

[McPherson]

I do not know which units are you using (energy do not measure in tons). My database (WWIIg) has following (and quite typical) muzzle energy values for guns first made made in around 1940:
37mm gun M1A2 0.25 MJ
47 mm armata przeciwpancerna wz. 39 0.57 MJ
57 mm anti-tank gun M1943 (ZiS-2) 1.58 MJ

_Sherman, a History of the American Medium Tank_ RP Hunnicutt. was ft.tons, for AP projectiles to that data charts

I'm used to joules (^^^) and that is VERY helpful to me to keep things straight in my mind.

 

[marathag]

BTW as modern scholarship has shown, a "Honey" to a British tanker means something that is a bit "sticky" and messy, so one cannot conflate Americanisms with what the British actually meant by "Honey".

Don't know where that wrong idea came from, maybe R. P. Hunnicutt?

South Africans who were equipped with them after their Cruisers fell to pieces, called them that. Brits followed.

Might want to read_Brazen Chariots_ by Major Robert Crisp on how well those air-cooled radial powered M3s worked in the desert thru 1941

 

[marathag]

1 ft*ton should be about 3 kJ. 112 ft*ton 37mm M6 was therefore 0.34 MJ, a lot for weapon of 37mm caliber. AP-T projectile of M3/M6 actually weighted 0.87kg, compared to 0.61kg (and at lower muzzle velocity) of M1. Even modern Millenium GDM-008 have muzzle energy of 0.31 MJ (although at caliber 35mm, which scale to 0.37 MJ for 37mm)

Going thru the charts, picked the ammo that had the most energy for each tube. The M6 37mm was a very good gun for hole punching, but icing on that cake was a full set of ammo types, like canister and HE

 

[McPherson]

South Africans who were equipped with them after their Cruisers fell to pieces, called them that. Brits followed.

Might want to read_Brazen Chariots_ by Major Robert Crisp on how well those air-cooled radial powered M3s worked in the desert thru 1941

Look at what he says about the M3 Stuart. He has the most recent scholarship to hand.

 

[marathag]

Look at what he says about the M3 Stuart. He has the most recent scholarship to hand.

So, don't care about what one of the top Commonwealth TCs of WWII thought on the tank?

 

[McPherson]

So, don't care about what one of the top Commonwealth TCs of WWII thought on the tank?

Actually, while I greatly respect the man's achievements and regard very highly his general comments on the M3 because he cites actual incidents embedded in the record; I don't have to accept his comments on the "Honey" myth about the M3; if it conflicts with so much else in the original source material. Nobody gets everything absolutely correct, and this just happens to be his one minor error.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Not sure how we can have gotten this far in this thread without referencing @fester 's Keynes Cruisers
https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/keynes-cruisers.388788/

 

[McPherson]

That piece of junk was powered by a Continental R-670, the same engine you find in the PT-17 Stearman biplane trainer aircraft that was the first trainer aircraft many USAAC pilots are going to see. Engine bottleneck. So guess what? Not only is this slower than a Stuart cross country, paper thin armored clunker, with the handle me gently or my transmission will quit on you; a mere way-stop to the Stuart, but it is a lot less reliable than this... piece of junk.

And there are only about 300 of them, the M-2 A4s.

That thing's (^^^ Ha-Go) shortcoming was paper thin armor (1.5 cm frontal plate, about the actual same plate as a British cruiser tank A9 of 1941 of the same period) and a lack of a radio. But its transmission, diesel engine and gun were absolutely 100% reliable. It could shoot holes in the M2 (^^^) and more importantly, it weighed only half as much, so it could be easily shipped. It was one of the many reasons the British in Malaya were routed. (Any tank supported infantry is 2x as lethal as none tank supported infantry,)

I think that the US Army Automotive Command should have pulled their collective hat-racks out of their biological waste treatment plant orifices and tried for this:

Hi, I'm what beat the Japanese at Khalkin Gul.

Which this was a hop skip and jump toward...(see below the ancestor of the BTs)

That is American (^^^) BTW and the only thing wrong with it, is what sits on top of it. (Not just the turret, but some of the braindead evaluators.).

The Stuart was indeed a considerable improvement over it, and equally almost a full magnitude over the Rock Island M2 which started life as a Vickers 6 tonner riopoff. Better engines and armor package in the Stuart. The gun (3.7cm) was still pathetic. A British 2 pdr or a French 4.7cm would have made the Stuart more lethal. (Prefer the French gun. It comes with HE and canister for anti-infantry work.)

Of course going straight for an M-7 instead of farting with the Stuart would have meant North Africa in 1941 would have been "interesting" in a negative Axis outcome kind of way.

Hi, there! I'm an evolved Stuart. I'm not as tall as a Sherman, I weigh less than a Sherman, have better protection than any British cruiser, with the same cross country performance and a better gun! My problem? I'm 3 years too late in 1943! So why build me? (Correct decision BTW. With the war in full swing, the resource diversion was not justifiable. McP.)

BTW as modern scholarship has shown, a "Honey" to a British tanker means something that is a bit "sticky" and messy, so one cannot conflate Americanisms with what the British actually meant by "Honey".

Don't know where that wrong idea came from, maybe R. P. Hunnicutt?

I want to revisit that Christie thing, because some people do not know how far back it goes or why Christie had a hate on for the US Army.

Christie M1931

On November 19th, 1928, an unusual vehicle came out of Fort Meade in Maryland. It looked more like a race car than what it really was: a tank. The turret was absent, replaced with a Browning M1919A2 on a pintle mount. Another machinegun was installed in a sponson in the front of the hull. This was the Christie M.1928, an experimental vehicle built by John Walter Christie's new company, the US Wheel Track Layer Corporation. Christie called his brainchild "M.1940", implying that this was a design ahead of its time. The main feature of the tank was the independently sprung suspension, known as the Christie suspension today.

Bombshell

The first unofficial demonstration of the Christie M.1928, sanctioned by Charles P. Summerall (the Chief of Staff of the US Army from 1926 to 1930) occurred in October of 1928 in Fort Myer, Virginia. As a result, a decision was made to begin trials of the tank on Christie's dime. During a march from Fort Meade to Gettysburg and back, the tank achieved an average speed of 45 kph, while the maximum speed was 68 kph on tracks and 112 kph on wheels. After the first phase of trials, the tank returned to the US Wheel Track Layer Corporation factory in Rahway, New Jersey, where it underwent repairs. In June of 1929, army trials were completed, and the cavalry continued testing the tank.

The Christie tank ruined the Bureau of Ordnance's plans to replace over 200 M1917 tanks. Before the M.1928 appeared on the scene, the main contender for the main tank of American infantry was the Light Tank T1. In the summer and fall of 1928, the T1E1 tanks also marched between Fort Meade and Gettysburg. The average speed during the first run was 14.5 kph, the second was 16 kph. After such "impressive" results, the demonstration of the Christie tank was like a bomb falling on the military representatives.

This reminds of another Christie and his pet torpedo the Mark XIV, but let's look at what is happening.

That (^^^) is what the M1928 Christie competed against.

Get in line!

On June 28th, 1930, after long negotiations and underhanded struggles, a decision was made to sign contract #89 with the US Wheel Track Layer Corporation to develop and build an improved version of the M.1928. The experimental prototype cost the treasury $55,000, with $6,000 reserved for tests and $1,000 for modification of the engine. Captain Christmas was appointed as the inspector of the contract from the Bureau of Ordnance. The rest of the money issued to buy tanks returned to the treasury.

During this struggle, Christie found other clients. The first among them was Poland. In 1929, Captain Marian Rusinsky, a representative of the Military Institute of Engineering Researh (WIBI), was sent to the United States. He met Christie and learned that the US Wheel Track Layer Corporation was working on an improved version of the M.1928, indexed M.1940. After negotiations, another contract was signed for Christie to build an improved M.1928 tank for Poland. The tank cost $30,000 and spare parts cost $3,500. The tank was due 90 days after the contract was signed.

Then you had the Russians...

That is where those BT-series tanks originate.

On April 28th, 1930, only a month after the deal with Poland, the US Wheel Track Layer Corporation signed a contract with the Soviet Amtorg Trading Corporation. The USSR paid $60,000 for two Christie M.1940 tanks (in two installments), $4,000 for spare parts, and $100,000 for a set of patents and a production license for ten years. The contract required the US Wheel Track Layer Corporation to inform the USSR about new tank designs. A place for a Soviet engineer at the Rahway factory was also reserved. This engineer was N.M. Toskin, the head of the Technical Department of the Directorate of Motorization and Mechanization. He arrived in the US in mid-July. The first 127 pages of blueprints were delivered to Moscow in August.

The Russians kept their bargain, the Poles sort of fell out with Christie.

But it gets worse:

After initial trials, the Christie M.1931 was sent to the Aberdeen Proving Grounds. The tank spent two months there, after which it returned to Rahway for repairs and modernization. Trials showed that the tank needs improvements, after which the contract was annulled and the M.1931 remained Christie's property. However, the Bureau of Ordnance could no longer play dumb, such were the obvious advantages of the Christie tank despite its drawbacks. On March 25th, 1931, the moment of truth came: a contract was signed between the US Wheel Track Layer Corporation and the Bureau of Ordnance to build a batch of five Christie M.1931 tanks. Three months later, on June 12th, 1931, the order was expanded to seven. As for the prototype, the government never bought it. Later, it interested the British, who rented it. The trials in Britain resulted in the Cruiser Tank Mk.III.

The upshot of all the hemming and hawing is that after a road march test, the US Infantry board reached the conclusion that they liked the Christie. They wanted the Christie, but they did not get the Christie. Why?

Well, it was not because of Patton;

"One unimaginable episode in her history is connected with a prototype of the new tank that John Walter Christie tried to sell the American government. George was a proponent of Christie's fighting machines for several years, and he arranged a demonstration of the tank's abilities to a commission of congressmen and high ranking army representatives. This happened in Fort Myer, Virginia, in April of 1932. High ranking representatives of the Military Affairs Committee were shown a light tank called the "Christie tracked vehicle". It was an effective demonstration of the tank's power, speed, and maneuverability. It leaped over deep trenches, rushed through a river crossing, and crossed obstacles at full speed. No one in the world has seen anything like it. After the demonstration, George offered a ride to any member of the committee. When all of them refused, he gave his helmet and goggles to his wife, who went through the same track a second time. After the trip, she climbed out of the turret, beaming, covered in dirt but satisfied, without a single bruise. One of the congressmen later approached George and said: "This is a wonderful tank, George, no doubt the best I've ever seen. But we aren't about to buy it, you know that. I doubt we would even if it drove up the steps of Capitol Hill full of votes. We just can't spend money on it."

As for ... Captain John K. Christmas? He goes on to accomplish relatively little in the Service of the Republic. Would not even be worth a footnote except that the T1 was his baby.

It kind of makes one think that what if?

 

[Father Maryland]

I want to revisit that Christie thing, because some people do not know how far back it goes or why Christie had a hate on for the US Army.



This reminds of another Christie and his pet torpedo the Mark XIV, but let's look at what is happening.

That (^^^) is what the M1928 Christie competed against.





Then you had the Russians...

That is where those BT-series tanks originate.


The Russians kept their bargain, the Poles sort of fell out with Christie.

But it gets worse:

The upshot of all the hemming and hawing is that after a road march test, the US Infantry board reached the conclusion that they liked the Christie. They wanted the Christie, but they did not get the Christie. Why?

Well, it was not because of Patton;



As for ... Captain John K. Christmas? He goes on to accomplish relatively little in the Service of the Republic. Would not even be worth a footnote except that the T1 was his baby.

It kind of makes one think that what if?

You're ignoring Christies tendency to ignore literally any aspect other then speed including very firmly set and relatively sensible qualities such as armor and weapons.

 

[McPherson]

You're ignoring Christies tendency to ignore literally any aspect other then speed including very firmly set and relatively sensible qualities such as armor and weapons.

You are correct, but I do have to wonder if the American Army had bought the tank and sent it to Rock Island to tinker around with it and/or just made a deal to license the patents or buy Christie outright, that maybe both sides could have met in the middle?

 

[Father Maryland]

You are correct, but I do have to wonder if the American Army had bought the tank and sent it to Rock Island to tinker around with it and/or just made a deal to license the patents or buy Christie outright, that maybe both sides could have met in the middle?

I believe part of the problem was that Christie was pig headedly obsessed with actually building the tanks himself. And it was virtually impossible to get him to even pretend to give a shit about any specific requested capabilities other then speed.

 

[McPherson]

I believe part of the problem was that Christie was pig headedly obsessed with actually building the tanks himself. And it was virtually impossible to get him to even pretend to give a shit about any specific requested capabilities other then speed.

That has me curious. He was willing to practically give his work to the Russians and to the British, so why was he so obstinate with the American Army? It just makes no sense to me. Your customer after all is the guy buying the thing.

 

[jsb]

You are OP-20G, (the NGS) not the General Board. You just came out of WW I and you have to figure out the navy problem for the next 20 years.

What do you know from WW 1?

Mines, torpedoes, shells, bombs (dud rates high), fire control issues, failures of naval reconnaissance, failures of naval communications, failures of fleet command and control, damage control procedures, COMMERCE WARFARE (subs), and MANPOWER issues.

This is where the British, Germans and Americans fell down.

Battleships don't rank very high on that issues list. Neither does planning the naval campaign (ORANGE), but that will be what physicists call an emergent solution as one addresses with foresight, not hindsight, the perceived known problems.

I think you are applying far to much hindsight, everybody kept wanting BB if they could afford/allowed them.

Battleships rank very high in officer promotion progression and numbers, dominating all the main navy's.

Nobody spent the time or money to work out all the lessons of WWI properly, expecting US to do so far better is very much exceptional hindsght.

I've answered (1).

Cruiser/frigate/destroyer/destroyer escort choices.

a. ^ 15.2 cm/53s are too specialized for the general threat, but if you want an improved Omaha (5 x 2 15.3 cm/53 4 x 2 12.7/38 and 2 x 5 TT for fleet escort, convoy protection and cruiser destroyer flags, I'm not adverse. 10,000 tonnes covers a LOT of sins if you don't overload and you remind yourself it is supposed to control a fight more than fight the fight. Leave that to your frigates and destroyers. Frigates exploit a loophole in the naval treaties. USCG cutters (DEs) same.

b. Answered under B.

What loophole? (cutters only work under 1WNT and as they are slow)

BY 2LNT its not 10,000t its,

Article 6 1 No light surface vessel of sub-category (b) exceeding 8,000 tons (8,128 metric tons) standard displacement, and no light surface vessel of sub-category (a) shall be laid down or acquired prior to 1 January 1943.

http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-089_London_Treaty_1936.php

I don't see any reason to not just build new copies of the OTL ships to speed it up as number would matter more than slightly better ships.

As to your Omaha, I really question that (5 x 2 15.3 cm/53 4 x 2 12.7/38 and 2 x 5 TT on 10,000t)
I would go for triples to try and save length & weight and don't think the 5/38 is great until VT so would prefer 40mm/56 or better still a 57mm/60 version?
So 3x3 15.3 cm/53 (ABX), 4x1 3"/50 (sides), 6x2 40mm/56 (sides and top of B&X) and 2 x 4 TT on 8,000t

The USNGS already knows "Through Ticket to Manila with a Jutland style coda":, is nonsense. It's Spanish American War with a sub campaign and aerial bombing thrown in for G and Gs, so why build for the wrong thing? .
Not just fighting Japan.

But this is the main public deterrence agaisnt IJN

It doesn't matter everybody (a most importantly high older decision makers) still counted navy strength in BBs so for deterrence you need them....

 

[McPherson]

I think you are applying far to much hindsight, everybody kept wanting BB if they could afford/allowed them.

Battleships continue to make sense until about 1935, but that is not what is the lesson of WW I. The Americans were doing analysis of what worked and what did not.

Battleships rank very high in officer promotion progression and numbers, dominating all the main navy's.

One rung on the ladder, but not the decisive rung. In the USN, shore assignments, such as overseas naval attaché postings, command of ports and bureaus and wrangling a plum aide to the president or a Congressional liaison assignment counted for a lot. Take a look at King (no battleship, but commanded Lexington as the experimental AIRCRAFT CARRIER), Ingersoll (Russo Japanese Peace Conference, became a communications intelligence specialist (spook), worked for Woodrow Wilson, some survey work, NWC, then ONI, some stints as exec for 2 "troubled" battleships, the Connecticut and the Arizona to help straighten them out, then battle staff for William Pratt, got to know FDR on the Augusta and commanded the San Francisco, then did a 3 year tour at War Plans where he butted heads with Turner. Part of the Op20-G experience was telling the Americans at the LNT where the RN was trying to pull a fast one on Uncle. His next sea billet was commander scouting force for the US fleet. After that he was LANTFLT (actual) charged with cleaning up the mess King created there with the U-boat war. He ended up commander of the Western Sea Frontier to straighten that MESS that RADM Bagley had reduced it too. Not a BB command in his resume.), Nimitz (bunch of subs and FDR's yacht the USS Augusta, along with a bunch of shore assignments that includes the Bureau of Navigation, and the usual NWC stint.) or Halsey (Bunch of destroyers, 1 of which he ran aground [Wickes?], the Saratoga, circumnavigated the Earth with the GWF on the Missouri PDN, NAS Pensacola, not a battleship command in his resume.)

Nobody spent the time or money to work out all the lessons of WWI properly, expecting US to do so far better is very much exceptional hindsght.

Actually the RN with ASDIC, their early aircraft carrier operations, night fighting training, evolution of fleet command and control procedures and basic ASW convoy doctrine shows that someone was trying hard.

What loophole? (cutters only work under 1WNT and as they are slow)

Look if the RN could skate with HMS Unicorn, then the USN could skate with "frigates".

BY 2LNT its not 10,000t its,
http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-089_London_Treaty_1936.php

Oh you will love this discussion. You know I actually agree with you, but by 1936, there was so much cheating going on, that the Atlantas, Juneaus and Didos just sailed on through.

I don't see any reason to not just build new copies of the OTL ships to speed it up as number would matter more than slightly better ships.

That's a very good point, but what do you do, when the technology makes the old design moot? or how about changed circumstances (like lots more money and a scared legislature?)

As to your Omaha, I really question that (5 x 2 15.3 cm/53 4 x 2 12.7/38 and 2 x 5 TT on 10,000t)
I would go for triples to try and save length & weight and don't think the 5/38 is great until VT so would prefer 40mm/56 or better still a 57mm/60 version?
So 3x3 15.3 cm/53 (ABX), 4x1 3"/50 (sides), 6x2 40mm/56 (sides and top of B&X) and 2 x 4 TT on 8,000t

a. 4 cm is not available to the USN in 1936. You wind up with 2.8 cm quads if you are lucky.
b. as a function of mutual interference in flight in a ladder, a 2 gun turret is preferable to a 3 gun turret and a triple is a disaster. (There is a difference in that a triple is unit mounted and cannot be individual barrel elevated.).
c. 5"/38 was historically actually devastating as AAA at Eastern Solomons and Santa Cruz so maybe I like it a bit more than others might. YMMV and should.
d. I like heavy torpedo salvoes (at least 5 fish per volley) because of the nose wander problem, but again YMMV and I'm not insistent.
e. 6 pounder is a good suggestion, but the USN does not have it, so maybe 3"? That's a lot of weight and you only might cover what the 5"/38s already give you?

It doesn't matter everybody (a most importantly high older decision makers) still counted navy strength in BBs so for deterrence you need them....

Another good point, so what did Carl Vinson want in the 2 Ocean Navy Bill? Aircraft Carriers.

 

[marathag]

I would go for triples to try and save length & weight and don't think the 5/38 is great until VT so would prefer 40mm/56 or better still a 57mm/60 version?

Type Rounds fired Kills Rounds per bird

3"/50 29,614 87.5 338

5" VT 117,915 346.5 340

5" Com 223,770 342.0 654

40 mm 1,271,844 742.5 1,713

1".1 85,996 44.5 1,932

20 mm. 3,264,956 617.5 5,287

 

[jsb]

Type Rounds fired Kills Rounds per bird

But you need to do it by year and rate of fire and weight/cost of each system.....

Is the 1.1" really 88.66% as good as the 40mm?

3"/50 29,614 87.5 338

If this is really all equal then this looks amazing as its lighter and fires faster than the 5" as well?